Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

Sep 6th 2013 new
(quote) Hunter-996560 said: In the past, there have been records indicating that people as close as first cousins would marry and have children, but in the US, I believe the law currently sets the demarcation point at sixth cousins. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)
Hunter,

I think you are thinking of Church law in this regard. US law is different. This is reported in JAMA (Medical Journal) in 1969.

Genetics and Laws Prohibiting Marriage in the United States

Michael G. Farrow, MS; Richard C. Juberg, MD, PhD

JAMA. 1969;209(4):534-538. doi:10.1001/jama.1969.03160170030006.

Laws prohibiting marriage in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories have been classified as those inclusive for categories of lineal and collateral relatives, and those specific for lineal, collateral, and affinous relatives.

A person may not marry a parent, grandparent, child, or grandchild except in Georgia, where a man is not prohibited from marrying his daughter or grandmother.

While all political units prohibit marriage between a person and a sibling, an aunt, or an uncle, their prohibitions vary considerably for other degrees of collateral relationship.

The uncle-niece marriage is not prohibited in Georgia and among Jews in Rhode Island.

Generally, marriage between persons with a coefficient of relatedness equivalent to first cousins or closer has been prohibited.

Fewer than one half of the political divisions have prohibitions regarding affinous relatives.

------------------

So, there we are! Such was the case with US law as late as 1969.
Sep 6th 2013 new
(quote) John-971967 said: Hunter,

I think you are thinking of Church law in this regard. US law is different. This is reported in JAMA (Medical Journal) in 1969.

Genetics and Laws Prohibiting Marriage in the United States

Michael G. Farrow, MS; Richard C. Juberg, MD, PhD

JAMA. 1969;209(4):534-538. doi:10.1001/jama.1969.03160170030006.

Laws prohibiting marriage in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories have been classified as those inclusive for categories of lineal and collateral relatives, and those specific for lineal, collateral, and affinous relatives.

A person may not marry a parent, grandparent, child, or grandchild except in Georgia, where a man is not prohibited from marrying his daughter or grandmother.

While all political units prohibit marriage between a person and a sibling, an aunt, or an uncle, their prohibitions vary considerably for other degrees of collateral relationship.

The uncle-niece marriage is not prohibited in Georgia and among Jews in Rhode Island.

Generally, marriage between persons with a coefficient of relatedness equivalent to first cousins or closer has been prohibited.

Fewer than one half of the political divisions have prohibitions regarding affinous relatives.

------------------

So, there we are! Such was the case with US law as late as 1969.
Out of curiousity, did Georgia refuse to pass laws prohibiting such marriages, or did it never feel the need to? Whenever I hear opinions on this matter, I get the impression the latter reason is correct.
Sep 6th 2013 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: Out of curiousity, did Georgia refuse to pass laws prohibiting such marriages, or did it never feel the need to? Whenever I hear opinions on this matter, I get the impression the latter reason is correct.
Not sure Alex. It's hard to know the motivations without a thorough research effort. It would take years; I am not sure anyone has addressed your question before. My quick internet search (as I am playing my 10yo a game of chess - yes really - btw, he's good, he's his class champ) albeit half-hearted, turns nothing up.
Sep 6th 2013 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: Humans are homo sapiens. The aforementioned theory would put Cain's wife as Homo Erectus (or another Homo species), which may have been able to interbreed with Homo Sapiens. In that case we would need neither polygenesis nor incest to create the human race, but there would not be humans that do not descend from Adam. As Homo erectus (and other Homo species) were not known about at the time of the Council of Trent, the Church had no question to address.

Consanguinous marriage in what is now prohibited degrees was not prohibited at the origin of man, and even after the fall for some period of time. It was not the sin of incest at the time to take one's sister to wife.

The prohibition was not revealed and made explicit at the time; however, that does not mean it did not exist. It would be problematic for God to need the human race to be propagated in a manner that would later be a sin.

First of all there are no other homo species all such finds have been proven to be false. If marriage is for the procreation of children then could incest have been banned because it affects the health of the off spring? This hypothesis also violates DNA science which says that there is only one race of humans. According to geneticists there are more differences in DNA in the so called individual races then between the so called separate races.

Here is a link to the evidence to the first statement

www.kolbecenter.org

Was Abraham a sinner? What about Issac? Abraham married his half-sister and Issac married his cousins.

Some other question that would need to be answered are:

If Adam was surrounded by his ape brothers, why was he lonely? The Bible recounts that there was not found among the animals a suitable mate or helper for Adam.

Did God erase from Adams mind what he used to be?

Did God also remove from his hominid relatives all recognition of Adam?

When Cain wed and bred with a woman from Nod, was she human or simian?

If Cains wife was neither, had God made a hybrid variant of human and beast, one that wasnt sterile?

Here is another question that has to be answered what happen to the population?

Here is a link for you about population stats.

www.kolbecenter.org

Thanks,

Brandon





Sep 6th 2013 new
(quote) Brandon-854380 said:

I did use the same response a lot also for yours.

First of all science as all tools if used appropriately is a good gift. Using science to come up with a natural explanation of the universe to free us of the God delusion is not a good use. Some things even though they occur cannot be explained away by natural science, especially if they have a supernatural cause. The universe beginning is a supernatural cause as you pointed out thus natural science cannot extrapolate back. Just because something is created does not mean science can explain how it came to exist in the universe. An example would be the conception of Christ.

First off the big bang hypothesis (no experimentation has been done that proves the whole theory.) says that it violates current natural laws to accomplish the creation of the universe. If God had to follow natural science why would he violate it? An example would be unorganized matter does not randomly organize. Also big bang violates laws of logic which violates science by saying when no matter existed supper dense matter exploded to produce the universe. Law of noncontradiction, which without no science can be performed. That is one of the hypotheses of what caused the big bang there are several since as you pointed out they cannot tell what happened since science cannot deal with things beyond space, matter and time. If you mean a different one please name the beginning process.

Genesis contains real history it gives an account of things that really happened. The big band does contradict this as it also provides how all planets came together including the earth. According to the big bang earth was a molten ball of lava for a billion years.

Adam and Eve were real human beings the first parents of all mankind. The big band contradicts this as pointed out by a quip from an atheist scientist you need not Jesus to die for you but stars. The big bang can only explain how light elements came into existence not the heavy ones. This means for the big bang stars had to supernova to create the heaver elements. This is why the big bang is always connected to evolution it is a naturalist explanation of the existence of the universe and man. If you believe in the big bang and not evolution then you would be the first person Ive meet that has not drawn the conclusion from big bang to theistic evolution. This goes to the Polygenism point also. It also deals with the body of Eve since the two hypotheses are always connected.

Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient. The big band does contradict this as it gives an account of how the earth came to be not just other planets. This is why it is always associated with evolution. It claims earth was molten ball of lava, some miraculous natural way created an atmosphere and rained washed rocks and which formed the first living things which lead to man. There was no earthly paradise.

After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man. The big band contradicts this as pointed out above and by a quip from an atheist scientist you need not Jesus to die for you but stars. The big bang can only explain how light elements (hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium) came into existence not the heavy ones. This means for the big bang stars had to supernova to create the heaver elements. This is why the big bang is always connected to evolution it is a naturalist explanation of the existence of the universe and man.

Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve. The big bang contradicts this because everything first thing had to die to get to the earth. All stars had to supernova to get heaver elements. It also goes along with this The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. If everything was exploding and dying, what is different? The punishment for sin is death. This is why Jesus had to die for us. Yes, it could explain entropy but why believe a hypothesis that violates it. The universe of the big bang would have had to become better organized not less. Thus it would have had to violate entropy and reduce entropy, thus violating natural science.

All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days.

First of all you said it might not have been 24 hours. I agree, but Moses was told 24 hours the father of the church concur. So, it could actual be 24 hours. Why, change when science cannot as you pointed out tell how long the days where. Why not listen to the author of time himself. Also, if science cannot know what times is because the universe might work different, than a hypothesis based off of uniformitarianism is of no use because maybe the same physics laws that apply today dont apply back then. In case you have not heard the ancient Egyptians counted in the millions and ten millions. Thus, Moses would not be surprised by millions of years, so God had no reason to tell Moses 24 hour days for Mosess poor understanding. Besides if God would let us in on the Holy Trinity, which according to St. Augustine we cannot fully comprehend on this earth why withhold the time it took to create for mans poor understanding? So, I do not believe these are good reason to doubt the church fathers. If you want to talk about light, light is not fully understood. This is also a problem for the big bang because the universe is the same temp and it should be all different temps based off of light speeds and age for the big bang to be correct. Thus the big bang also contradicts The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created except for each human rational soul at conception, if the days are actual days which as you have said they could have been. Since this is the case it could be six 24 hours days thus the big bang contradicts this on the whim of scientist who want to explain away the existence of the universe as nature making nature, while violating natural laws without given any evidence of how that happens just belief.

St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark

The historical existence of Noahs Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption.

The big bang does contradict this as I pointed out early it also gives how the earth came to be not just other planets, stars, etc. This is why the big bang is always connected to evolution it is a naturalist explanation of the existence of the universe and man. This is why it is always associated with evolution. It claims earth was molten ball of lava, some miraculous natural way earth created an atmosphere, then rained and washed rocks, which formed the first living things which lead to man. Interestingly the first scientists to propose a long age earth did so with wanting to free geology from Noahs flood not from any evidence. This is where the layer date methods came from for rocks, which was proven wrong.

Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.

Again yes it does, it does not deal with only other planets but ours as well. Which includes evolution and how the earth became ripe for habitable for life and how life came to be.

This topic is a question of origins and is why I posted what the church teaches on them. I fail to see why I should trust scientists who would lie to free me from my God delusion which is the stated goal of most of the prominent teachers/ believers of the big bang hypothesis. Like the homosexual gene discover or Haeckels human embryos with gills. Scientists who are atheists and agnostic have no reason not to lie if it means it will help free people from the God delusion and advance free society. Any scientist should take a look at what the assumption of the scientists are when they approach the evidence and the scientist claims of the evidence. No, person is neutral to anything especially not scientists. Example: if you completely rule out creationism before looking at the evidence are you really neutral? No, you are not and any interpretation of the evidence will be a natural one no matter what the evidence is. Am I surprised that scientist who completely rule out creation come up with a natural answers even if it defies current scientific understanding and even if the challengers to the hypotheses cannot be corrected, no. The big bang is one of many hypotheses that have emerged since Einstein destroyed the steady state universe theory should have been a hypothesis to natural explain the universe's existence. This is not the only one because the big bang hypothesis has holes and other scientists have provided other natural explanations with more holes to cover the big bang holes. Thus the big bang with fewer holes is most widely accepted now.

I also believe creationism is a hypothesis since we cannot do any repeatable experiments. Thus everything on origins is a hypothesis because the whole theory cannot be tested. Scientists have been giving origins topics names of theories to make them sound proven which they are not. I would say that in the current understanding of science creationism has more science backing. Like not violating information science, entropy, and earths magnetic field and magnetic fields of all planets in our solar system having young magnetic fields.

Thanks,

Brandon

The big bang can only explain how light elements came into existence not the heavy ones. This means for the big bang stars had to supernova to create the heaver elements.

You are aware that the elements that you speak of are created by protons and neutrons which are in turn composed by quarks? Big bang theory does explain how we have quarks. Some more laws of science explain how we go from quarks to protons and neutrons and then from those particles (and electrons) to atoms and then to molecules.

Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient. The big band does contradict this as it gives an account of how the earth came to be not just other planets. This is why it is always associated with evolution. It claims earth was molten ball of lava, some miraculous natural way created an atmosphere and rained washed rocks and which formed the first living things which lead to man. There was no earthly paradise.

If it were natural, it would not be miraculous. Genesis indicates that the Garden was planted after the formation of the Earth. Holding that the Earth was a molten ball of lava at some point is not a contradiction.

All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days.
I have heard this calim many times. I finally looked it up; this is what I got. My google search was "Church fathers on Genesis" and it was the first hit.
www.catholic.com

Why, change when science cannot as you pointed out tell how long the days where. Why not listen to the author of time himself. Also, if science cannot know what times is because the universe might work different, than a hypothesis based off of uniformitarianism is of no use because maybe the same physics laws that apply today dont apply back then.

Science at the present time cannot do so. This does not mean that in the future it cannot. At one point, science had no explanation for why we had extremely complicated models for the planetary rotations. The exact same laws of physics exist now as then, we just don't understand them as well as we need to. Just as we do not understand God as well as we need to.

In case you have not heard the ancient Egyptians counted in the millions and ten millions. Thus, Moses would not be surprised by millions of years, so God had no reason to tell Moses 24 hour days for Mosess poor understanding.

Moses might have understood, but the rest of the Israelites might not have. Also, God would appear a lot less powerful if he actually told them the Earth was a few billion (not million) years old.

Besides if God would let us in on the Holy Trinity, which according to St. Augustine we cannot fully comprehend on this earth why withhold the time it took to create for mans poor understanding?

You are aware that the Holy Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament correct? (Note: I am aware that one can find passages that support the existence of the Trinity in the OT; however, having read enough Jewish opinions of the matter, I am convinced that finding the Trinity in the OT is a matter of starting bias).

This is also a problem for the big bang because the universe is the same temp and it should be all different temps based off of light speeds and age for the big bang to be correct.

Or the universe has cooled down. There is a theory concerning the heat death of the universe.

St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings and all kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark

The historical existence of Noahs Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption.

The big bang does contradict this as I pointed out early it also gives how the earth came to be not just other planets, stars, etc.

Umm, no. This is just wrong; the Big Bang Theory does not contradict the Flood story.

I also believe creationism is a hypothesis since we cannot do any repeatable experiments. Thus everything on origins is a hypothesis because the whole theory cannot be tested.

Lovely, we have no way to actually resolve this question.

Before you take the literalness of Genesis too far, you should be aware that prior to the development of the printing press, copying a book was an expensive process. Including scripture verses that addressed the question of the exact manner by which the universe developed, would have made copying the bible a more expensive process. For example, my copy of the bible (NRSV, 2nd Catholic Edition) can be bought for less than 30 dollars, which is less than 1% of my after tax salary. However, without modern factories/printing presses, that would cost a lot more. For example hand copying a torah scroll is a laborious process. Here is a short list of various requirements concerning making one:
www.chabad.org
The important one is that it takes about a year to make one, just one. The cost of a torah scroll would have to support such a copier for the year. Including extra passages would make this process more longer and hence more expensive. Concerning creation, God needed to teach everyone that he is the author of creation. He did not need to teach the exact manner by which the Earth and the Stars were formed. He needed to teach that we live in a fallen state. He did not need to teach the exact manner in which we lived prior to the fall. God needed to teach that one's sins are washed away by water and that he has the power to wash away all sin, no matter how bad; he also needed an explanation for why there are fish fossils in the mountains. There is another interesting point here, which is that Noah only knew that the waters subsided when he had sent forth a dove and she returned with an olive branch and then seven days later, he sent forth the dove again and she did not return.

Sep 6th 2013 new
(quote) Brandon-854380 said:

First of all there are no other homo species all such finds have been proven to be false. If marriage is for the procreation of children then could incest have been banned because it affects the health of the off spring? This hypothesis also violates DNA science which says that there is only one race of humans. According to geneticists there are more differences in DNA in the so called individual races then between the so called separate races.

Here is a link to the evidence to the first statement

www.kolbecenter.org/a-critique-of-ethiopia-man/

Was Abraham a sinner? What about Issac? Abraham married his half-sister and Issac married his cousins.

Some other question that would need to be answered are:

If Adam was surrounded by his ape brothers, why was he lonely? The Bible recounts that there was not found among the animals a suitable mate or helper for Adam.

Did God erase from Adams mind what he used to be?

Did God also remove from his hominid relatives all recognition of Adam?

When Cain wed and bred with a woman from Nod, was she human or simian?

If Cains wife was neither, had God made a hybrid variant of human and beast, one that wasnt sterile?

Here is another question that has to be answered what happen to the population?

Here is a link for you about population stats.

www.kolbecenter.org/population-statistics-support-biblical-chronology/

Thanks,

Brandon





Hmm, your second link uses the natural number as the base of the exponent. The best proof it can provide of this is a reference to a pre-calc text book; this is not a serious scientific reference. Humans do not reproduce in a manner consistent with the natural exponent.

Some of the logic used in your first link can also be used to disprove that Mary is Mother of God.
Sep 6th 2013 new
(quote) John-971967 said: Not sure Alex. It's hard to know the motivations without a thorough research effort. It would take years; I am not sure anyone has addressed your question before. My quick internet search (as I am playing my 10yo a game of chess - yes really - btw, he's good, he's his class champ) albeit half-hearted, turns nothing up.
Congratulations on your son.

I tried an internet search as well. It turned up nothing.
Sep 6th 2013 new
(quote) Alex-789274 said: Congratulations on your son.

I tried an internet search as well. It turned up nothing.
Yeah, he beat me; I have to build his confidence :) <br><br>ok back to the topic...
Sep 7th 2013 new
Brandon,

Natural laws are affected by the dimension of time, hence there is "change" in the world we observe and as we know it, whether we like it or not.

Yes, the "big bang" is still just a theory, yet it keeps passing the muster test in the short time it's been considered where others have been disproven much more readily.

I imagine that you know that the first scientist to propose the Big Bang Theory was actually Monsignor Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian Jesuit priest and scholar prominent in the 1920s and 1930s?

Lemaitre was trying to work out the implications of an expanding universe in light of Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity (about time & space), and therefore proposed a cataclysmic, everything-springs-from-a- speck-of-almost-nothing theory that made all the fancy math work out right.

Mark Midbon, in an article first published in Commonweal and posted now at the Catholic Education Resource Center site, puts what happened next this way:

Lemaitre published his calculations and his reasoning in Annales de la Societe scientifique de Bruxelles in 1927. Few people took notice. That same year he talked with Einstein in Brussels, but the latter, unimpressed, said, Your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable.

Creation has a way of working out, though. For in 1933, Einstein is reported to have said publicly in a meeting of scientists in California, regarding Lemaitre's theory, This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.

How about that? The leap (of faith?) required to accept this theory (one which also includes the possibility of a God who existed before the creation of the universe and of time, or who perhaps set the Big Bang in motion) was at first too much even for Einstein himself to make. So Lemaitre had to faithfully wait for Uncle Albert to come around to his way of thinking, which he eventually did.

Then Lemaitre had to wait a few more decades for all the unspoken but fairly apparent anti-religious or anti-Catholic sentiment to die away within the scientific community. The Big Bang was a highly and vehemently debated principle right up through 1964, when theories about background noise (in the form of microwaves observed by Bell Labs) were used as further evidence that a cataclysmic explosion and its echoes were the source of that noise, and thus the source of the initial creative event.

Lemaitre had been ill when the news of these developments first broke. But eventually he received word that his gutsy, godly logic was finally being vindicated by other proofs and corroborating evidence. Thankfully, he lived to see his 1927 work finally beginning to gain firm footing, in 1964 and 1965. Then in 1966, he passed away at age 71, probably glad for the chance to finally consult the ultimate source (God) of all creation and truth.

Sep 7th 2013 new
@Brandon:
After reading your post, I have a question. Do you believe that the Earth is ~6,000 years old?

Now, on to the rest of it.

  • If you believe in the big bang and not evolution then you would be the first person Ive meet that has not drawn the conclusion from big bang to theistic evolution.
I do not believe in evolution - Darwinian or theistic. I believe that each species* was created as itself rather than being a mutation of a previously existing species.

Do I believe in the big bang? What I believe is that how God created the universe isn't important to the salvation of the soul, just that He did. The how is a matter of debate, something which is possible to be up for debate, and I believe that the big bang is currently the best theory we have regarding the how. If we come up with a better idea for a how in the future, and it makes more sense than the big bang, I will probably believe that instead. Changing my opinion of the how does not change my belief that God did create the universe ex nihilo.

As a second part to the response to this point, the big bang and evolution are not two parts of one overarching theory. Neither are they different names for the same theory. One deals with the formation of celestial bodies, the other deals with the origins of life. Atheists frequently pair the two together because doing so fits their mythology of a godless universe, but the two are not the same thing. Please don't confuse the two, and please don't conflate the two.

So yes, I do believe God used the big bang to create the universe, and I do not believe in evolution. Nice to meet you. I'm not alone.

*This leads to the interesting question of my definition of "species". Do I mean it in a broad sense - salmon; anole; frog; crow; human - or something more scientific - Rana catesbeiana; Lithobates pipiens; Andinobates bombetes? Certainly the former. I'm not sure about the latter, however. Could God have created each individual species as they are currently recognized and classified by the taxonomic community? Absolutely. That's within His ability. Adam would have been kept incredibly busy naming each individual species if this were the case. However, it's also possible that the animals were created at a base level, and either adapted to their surroundings naturally (or with supernatural assistance) as they spread across the globe, or they gained their diversity through human intervention (as is the case with dogs). Ultimately, this isn't an important question with a must-know answer, though I do find it interesting to think about.

  • Moses was told 24 hours
Was he told "24 hours", or was he told "one day"? I tried looking it up, but couldn't find it. If anyone has the source, please cite it for me.

Let's say it was "one day" since, y'know, that's what Genesis says. Now, let's also go back to our algebra classes and remember what variables are. This is a perfect situation for variables to be used.

Does "one day" equal 24 hours? Does "one day" equal millions of years, compressed into a faster-moving time frame, thus synchronizing with today's 24 hours? Or could "one day" simply be a variable, a way to divide related acts of creation into distinct groups? It could be the first. It could be the second. But it could also be the third and the first, or the third and the second. Whether the first or the second are accurate (and, as I've said before, I tend to lean towards the second, though I also like a "2.5" of "billions and billions of years, no time compression"), ultimately the third is what really matters. God created specific things in a specific order, all according to His plan. Specific things were to be created on the first day, specific things on the second, and so forth, up until the sixth day, when God created that which was the whole reason for creating everything before it.

~~~

I was going to make this longer, respond to more things, but re-reading your post made me realize that I already responded to most of it in an earlier post of mine.
Posts 21 - 30 of 167